Pendant and shade not suitable for bathrooms?

[JohnW2]

That nothing can be done to reduce road accident fatalities does not mean nothing should be done to reduce other dangers but it's like you have said before, the cost of everyone fitting RCDs has been generally, if not wasted, then unnecessary - unless it happens to be your loved one who(m?) was saved.

Indeed, but what of those whose loved one was killed on the roads, and might not have been if the countless millions spent on RCDs instead been spent on aspects of road safety?

I'm not sure about your initial premise. Road 'accident' fatalties in the UK have been reduced dramatically, despite the increasing number of vehicles and road usage. The current (absolute) number of deaths is about half of what it was in 2000, and around a third of what it was in 1980. As above, it could well have been reduced even further if all that 'RCD money' had been used in relation to road safety.

Bearing in mind the 15th edition and bonding windows, it begs the question "Do they know what they are doing?" and/or "Why hasn't the latest regulation been brought in until now?".

Indeed. As you know, I'm not an electrician, let alone an electrical engineer, but some of the things written even in current regulations appear, even to me, to indicate an author with less understanding and/or common sense than I have - and, as you say, they seem to fail to take into account things which have been known (and 'understood') for decades (the recent advent of "Cmin" being a good example). It is very difficult to understand, given that the regs are authored by committees consisting of substantial numbers of very qualified and experienced people.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

"IF" instead of "that", then - at the beginning of my post.

 

[JohnW2]

"IF" instead of "that", then - at the beginning of my post.

OK - but, as I said, I feel sure that more could have been done to reduce road fatalities even further IF all that 'RCD money' had been spent on road safety (and it would essentially have been literally impossible for RCDs to reduce the number of deaths by more than about a dozen per year, probably less, at most).

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

the people who come up with these regulations are often of a similar mindset to stillp, and sincerely believe that it is 'right', and a laudable service to society, to make attempts to further reduce any risk, even if it is already incredibly small.

Of course it is laudable and right, as long as the cost (not just in financial terms) is not disproportionate.

 

[stillp]

it could well have been reduced even further if all that 'RCD money' had been used in relation to road safety

Perhaps, but nobody is in a position to make a choice between those two alternatives. The 'RCD money' is spent by householders, not the Highways Agency.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course it is laudable and right, as long as the cost (not just in financial terms) is not disproportionate.

Exactly - my "sensible" is equivalent to your "as long as the cost is not disproportionate".

Of course, there will always be debate as to what is, or is not, 'proportionate' (or 'disproportionate') when we are talking about potential loss of a human life. Even just in financial terms, what cost (to society as a whole) is 'proportionate' as the price of preventing one human death - £100k, £1m, £10m or what? It gets a little easier (at least 'dispassionately') if one can argue or demonstrate that more human deaths would be prevented by using society's money in some other way.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

what cost (to society as a whole) is 'proportionate' as the price of preventing one human death - £100k, £1m, £10m or what?

HSE use a figure of £1M I believe. I don't think that has been updated for some years.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps, but nobody is in a position to make a choice between those two alternatives. The 'RCD money' is spent by householders, not the Highways Agency.

A valid point, but I think it warrants debate about how these situations come about.

Much of the RCD money would not have been spent by householders had BS7671 not required RCDs, and most of it would not have been spent if some official body (maybe comparable with NICE) had examined the situation and had advised that, although widespread deployment of RCDs would probably save a very small number of lives, the cost (as you say, in all senses) could not really be justified ("not cost-effective"). NICE are doing similar all the time, decreeing that, even though it would be of benefit to a small number of patients, the cost of widespread use of some treatment cannot be accepted as "cost-effective" (i.e. 'affordable').

At least in theory, government could then have collected through additional taxation the money that householders would otherwise have spent on the RCDs and re-deployed it in a manner which was more "cost effective" for society as a whole. Although, on average, no-one would have been financially worse off as a result, it is obviously something that wouldn't happen!

However, I do think that those who create these regulations should perhaps give more thought to the economic and sociological consequences of what they 'decree'. It seems that they are adopting your view, that if it is technically possible to reduce further an already extremely small risk, then that should/must be done, regardless of cost (in all senses) and impact on society.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

HSE use a figure of £1M I believe. I don't think that has been updated for some years.

One can obviously debate the figure ad infinitum, and opinions will vary a lot.

However, the last time I had a stab at it, I made a wild guesstimate that the amount spent on buying and installing RCDs in the UK was probably well in excess of £2 billion. If one uses the HSE figure you have indicated, do you seriously believe that RCDs have saved 2000+ lives (particularly given that the total number of deaths in the UK from electrocution has been in the range 20-40 per year for many years)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I can easily reach my lounge ceiling (2440mm high) from FFL. I am 1.835m tall.

 

[JohnW2]

I can easily reach my lounge ceiling (2440mm high) from FFL. I am 1.835m tall.

Quite.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

if some official body (maybe comparable with NICE) had examined the situation and had advised that, although widespread deployment of RCDs would probably save a very small number of lives

Are you seriously suggesting another QUANGO?

do you seriously believe that RCDs have saved 2000+ lives (particularly given that the total number of deaths in the UK from electrocution has been in the range 20-40 per year for many years)?

No, of course I don't. Also bear in mind that most RCD operations are not caused by current flowing through a person to earth but by current flowing through a fault to earth, so some lives will be saved by avoidance of some fires.
Yes, in terms of saving lives, RCDs are perhaps not cost-effective. Very few deaths are caused by brake failures on cars, so would you like the money spent on dual-circuit braking systems to be spent on something else?

 

[stillp]

your view, that if it is technically possible to reduce further an already extremely small risk, then that should/must be done, regardless of cost (in all senses) and impact on society

Care to quote where I stated that view? On the contrary, I pointed out that all risks should be reduced unless the cost of doing so is disproportionate.

 

[JohnW2]

Care to quote where I stated that view? On the contrary, I pointed out that all risks should be reduced unless the cost of doing so is disproportionate.

Yes, but I'm suggesting that 'they' might not always give enough thought to the "unless......" bit.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Are you seriously suggesting another QUANGO?

Who knows? Some sort of external oversight of what all these regulators do/demand would seemingly be desirable.

Yes, in terms of saving lives, RCDs are perhaps not cost-effective. Very few deaths are caused by brake failures on cars, so would you like the money spent on dual-circuit braking systems to be spent on something else?

IF it could be demonstrated that spending the money on the 'something else' would result in more deaths being prevented, and if there were not enough money/resources available to spend it on both, then there would be a fairly strong argument for saying 'yes', wouldn't there?

Kind Regards, John